About bbohnert

After double checking to make sure the cameras were turned on and the hearing was being broadcast to a nationwide audience, the members of the House financial services committee proceeded to engage in a timeless congressional tradition: grandstanding. “How many of you took private jets here?” one asked, “how many of you are thinking about putting them on Ebay?” quipped another, “couldn’t you all have downgraded to first class or jet pooled or something to get here?” smirked a third. As other members gleefully piled on, the CEOs of the three major automakers sat sullen, like petulant children who had gotten caught being naughty. Relive your childhood “I’m really disappointed in you, son” lecture here:

Like the obnoxious guy at the party that tells the same stupid joke because he knows it always gets a good laugh, each and every member had some comment about the private jets throughout the hearing. Predictably, the evening news and late night talk shows picked up the easy sound bites and the “cooler talk” the next day centered around the general douchebaggery of the rich CEOs and then moved on to the more pressing news that Brittany Spears was making a comeback appearance at the AMAs. While Congress certainly did a good job in pointing out the symbolic mistake, they missed a golden oppotunity to address the real problem with American automakers: their cars.

While some have blamed the unions and others have blamed the fiancial meltdown, analysts need to look no further than the 8 mile/gallon mobile overcompensation machine known as the Hummer. While the rest of the world was making the shift to more fuel efficient cars, American manufacturers stubbornly continued to stamp out the gas guzzlers that would lead to their eventual demise. After visiting Germany in the summer of 2006, I was struck at how small the cars on the streets were and how few SUVs clogged the highways. Even the trucks that were used for delivery or construction were much smaller then Ford’s Excursion or Chevy’s enormous pickups. The tiny Smart Car was a regular occurrence and people did not endure the juvenile ridicule of poltical rivals if they drove a hybrid.

When I came back state side, I was keenly aware of how large the vehicles around me were – and how many of these vehicles carried around one person at a time. When I turned on the TV, Jeep was advertising the new Cherokee SR8, the least fuel efficient jeep ever produced (but hey it had a Hemi and makes alot of noise guys…SWEET!), while Toyota was rolling the Prius off the assembly line. GM’s solution to the highest gas prices in a decade? “We’ll buy your gas for a year!!!” American consumers were never asked to change their behavior and the automakers fought congressional efforts to make fuel standards stricter.

Furthermore, the old men at Ford continue to scratch their balding heads and wonder why young people don’t buy their cars. Market research makes it pretty clear that young people are more image conscience than most yet Ford has the same logo that they had WHEN THE MODEL T CAME OUT!!! Toyota? they invent an entirely new brand (Scion) to market exclussivly to the young, hip, loud music set with great success. While a logo does not make or break a car, its a symbol of the lack of innovative thought that American companies need to stay compettive. Couple that with the fact that American cars are less reliable and have more recalls than foreign cars and you get 3 CEOs begging for cash to bail them out.

So what now? When he is not pandering for votes in Michigan, Mitt Romney tells Detroit to take a hike while other Republicans refuse to support a detroit bail out. The results of this would be catastrophic according to some analysts who predict the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs by the time you factor in part suppliers and retailers. Obama is a bit more pragmatic at this point and has sent a message to Detroit that they need to make changes that should have been made years ago. So this week, the CEOs stocked up on beef jerkey, made a sweet mix tape and roadtripped back to DC – this time trading in the private jets and rolling into town driving Hybrids.

While there is still hope for American autos (at least according to this guy) there needs to be fundamental changes in the way we look at driving and the type of fuel standards that we demand from the cars we buy. American car companies need to ditch the SUV or make them more fuel efficient. They need to innovate and stay current with style trends to attract new buyers. They need to hire the best and the brightest to live in a green economy and yes, they may even have to get rid of the private jets and lavish salaries for their CEOs. That being said, I’m still going to buy a Subaru.

As the clock winds down on the Bush presidency, it seems as though our 43rd president is not done putting his ideological stamp on the American political landscape – this time in the form of last minute executive orders and executive rule changes. This article discusses how he has gone about it and about how they plan on making them last far into an Obama presidency. Last May, White house chief of staff Josh Bolton instructed all of the offices within the cabinet to finalize any recommendations by November 1st. Why is that date significant? The rules state that if an order or regulation is finalized within 60 days, before the next president takes over, it can simply be overturned by the new administration by stopping the process. However, if a regulation has already taken affect by that time, it becomes nearly impossible to overturn it without congressional action. This guy discusses the process at length: As a result, the Bush administration has put numerous regulations on the table and it looks might have met the deadline on some of the most egregious ones. This list is tracking the regulations and indicates that it is business as usual for the Bush team. Allowing loaded guns into National Parks, easing pollution standards for factories, opening public land for oil shale exploration, easing restrictions on uranium mining and decreasing police surveillance restrictions are only a few of the ideological driven regulations that are in process. The practice of “midnight regulations” is nothing new but traditionally presidents will implement new regulations (such as Clinton banning two stroke snowmobiles -or “machines” if you’re from Alaska- from Yellowstone) instead of easing old ones. Most of the rules that Bush is proposing will ease common sense environmental and economic rules. According to Gary Bass, the executive director of OMB watch, the reason is very clear:

“This is Bush trying to leave a legacy that supports his ideology. This was very strategic and it was in line of the ideology of the Bush administration which has been to put in place a free market and conservative agenda.”

To be fair, the Bush adminstration has said that they are not up to anything shifty and responded by saying:

“We are not rushing regulations through at the last minute. We are simply continuing our responsibility of governing until the end of the president’s term,” said White House spokesman Carlton Carroll.

Well forgive me for taking Carroll’s words with a rather large grain of salt as this administration’s past track record is spotty at best. So how can the Democrats respond? Ironically, it might be the GOP that will end up giving the tools to the Dems to overturn these last minute rules. GOP pushed through the “Congressional Review Act” in 1996 for the expressed purpose of stopping Clinton from implementing last minute rules before he left office. This act allows congress to vote on rule changes that occur within 60 days of the end of the term by having an up or down vote – which has only happened once, when congress overturned an ergonomic workplace rule Clinton pushed for. However, the political ramifications of this are significant when the Obama team is trying to build a sense of bi-partisanship in the new congress.

That being said, if we take Obama at his word, there will be significant push back against these last minute rules and executive orders. On the campaign trail, Obama promised in the first 100 days his AG would look at every Bush Executive order and overturn things that look unconstitutional (so, take your pick). He reiterated his commitment to this promise on 60 minutes and said-much to the chagrin of Mitt Romney – definitively that he plans on closing Gitmo and restricting the use of torture by US forces.

while some of the regulations will remain due to the political realities of Washington, it is at least encouraging to see a leader take a stand on things he will not be able to easily back away from. Hopefully, Team Obama can minimize the damage done by Bush on the way out the door.

Largely buried in the furor of the historic nature of the presidential election, our old electoral friend “the wedge issue” has not disappeared completely. Used to great effect in the 2000, and 2004 elections by Rove and the RNC to get voters to the polls (although, it should be noted that there is not much statistical evidence for the actual success of said strategy), wedge issues have worked their way onto ballots around the country for the 2008 election. What exactly defines a wedge issue in terms of ballot politics? From the name, we can assume that these are issues designed to create division within the electorate and to play upon fears – many times unfounded. Almost exclusively social issues, these debates many times turn irrational and play to the lowest common denominator of humanity. This video explains further:

However, these are not necessarily issues that should be taken lightly or brushed aside by political observers as they have the potential to mobilize large numbers of voters to volunteer in campaigns and to get to the polls on election day. While Colorado has its fair share of wedge issues on the ballot (48, 46), lets take a look at some of the other issues that are showing up on the ballot for voters do decide on tomorrow.

Wedge issue #1) – Same sex marriage – a question pertaining to this shows up on ballots in Arizona (Prop. 102) Arkansas (Initiative 1), California (Prop. 8) and Florida (Am. 2). Each one of these addresses a different facet of the the same sex debate that is taking place in states across the country. The Arizona measure is similar to one that failed in 2006 that would make it constitutionally illegal for gay couples to marry. It is already illegal by way of statute, which is why this failed in 2006 and will most likely again fail in 2008. The Arkansas measure makes it illegal for “cohabiting couples outside of a valid marriage” to adopt kids (because I suppose an overcrowded orphanage is much better for their overall psychological development), the Florida question bans same-sex marriage, and California’s measure seeks to reverse a Supreme Court decision last year that struck down a ban on same-sex marriage. – something that had Ellen dancing, and Bill O pontificating.

While each of these scream “GET TO THE POLLS YOU EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS!!!” it is clear that this voting block does not hold the sway it once did a few short years ago. While this continues to be at the top of the list for James Dobson and his loyal followers, America as a whole has largely moved on from the issue to more pressing things, like real issues that actually matter.

Wedge Issue #2 – Abortion – This issue shows up on the Colorado ballot (Am 48 – definition of personhood), the South Dakota ballot (Init. 11) and the California ballot (Prop 4 – parental notification). The most aggressive attack on reproductive rights comes from the South Dakota measure that would ban all abortions except in the case of rape and health of the mother, put doctors in jail and is clearly desinged to overturn Roe v. Wade. While the voters of SD have previously voted to turn down such restrictive laws, all eyes will be focused on the outcome of this election as polling predicts that it has a good chance of passing. This of course, makes the presidential election all that more important as the next commander-in-chief will determine the make up of the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future.

Wedge Issues # 3-7 – immigration, stem cell research, affirmative action, marijuana, assisted suicide – While the bulk of the ballot debate has focused on abortion and same-sex marriage, other states will be deciding about these other popular wedge issues. Arizona makes it illegal to hire immigrants that are undocumented, Michigan voters will decide if stem cell research is allowed and if marijuana can be legal for medicinal use, and Washington state will continue its battle over doctor assisted suicide or “right to die” debate that has been going on for the past eight years.

While each one of these alone does not determine national policy, the test cases that each of these represent have broader implications for future laws. While most political pundits have large Democratic wins across the nation, one can wonder if that will translate into decisive victories on these ballot initiatives as well (you can track the results here). If the original intention was to get these on the ballot so conservative voters will come to the polls, it might have backfired. In other words, what would be more debilitating to “pro-life” advocates if Am 48 in Colorado and Initiative 11 in South Dakota lose by substantial margins? What if Democratic voters come out in droves to vote for Barack Obama and while in the booth vote to keep gay marriage legal in California and allow gay couples to adopt in Arkansas? Whatever the results, wedge issues will never completely disappear, but hopefully using them solely for political gain at the polls will be a thing of the past.

With the collective national attention focused on the presidential race, sometimes the other races get lost in the political shuffle (not to be confused with the 1985 smash hit The Superbowl Shuffle). While certainly not as compelling as the main event, congressional races in the state of Colorado open an excellent window into the unique demographic areas found within Colorado – from the urban centers on the front range, to the ranch lands of the western slope. These races represent the pulse of the state within the context of national representation and deserve some much needed attention from students of political science and the media alike.

First, let us turn to the United States Senate race – the only state wide vote that will determine who represents Colorado in Washington DC. Wayne Allard’s 2007 announcement that he would not seek a third term in congress left the Democrats salivating over the prospects of sending yet another senator to Washington and had the Republicans scrambling to defend a seat in a year that will prove to be difficult for the GOP brand. Both parties avoided a tough primary election and the field was quickly narrowed to two seasoned Colorado politicans in Mark Udall (D) and Bob Schaffer (R), both former US Congressmen that had eyed the senate seat in the past. With the Democrats riding a wave of success from the 2006 midterms (Governor, House, Senate, US Senate) Udall quickly seized the opportunity to tie Schaffer to the Bush “legacy” and contrast his own progressive record with Schaffer’s traditional republican model. This ad not so subtly does the job: Not surprisingly, Schaffer responded by pinning the “Boulder Liberal” tag on Udall, which carries with it all of those crazy things that Boulder voters care about (equal rights, clean environment, peace, birkenstocks…etc.). Since this is a statewide race, and the conservative western slope/Colorado Springs area seems to respond (and by respond, I mean giggling about gays and pot smokers or gay pot-smokers) to this overplayed stereotype, this ad: was a logical step for the Schaffer campaign. In many ways, this race is emblematic of the the internal identity struggle within Colorado and in some respects the entire rocky mountain region. Schaffer runs on a predictable pro-business, extraction economy, family values platform while Udall (a former Outward Bound instructor) runs on the also somewhat boilerplate pro-union, pro-environment, anti-war platform of the Democrats. It seems the blue trend will continue in Colorado as recent polling shows Udall ahead by 6 points. If this holds true, the duel Democratic representation in the US senate will be the first since the 1970s.

While the Colorado senate race is one of the most closely watched by pundits nationwide, no less important are the seven congressional districts within Colorado. Currently, the delegation is split 4-3 in favor of the Democrats who are hoping to pick up at least one more seat in the next session of congress and it looks like it might be possible – here is how:

District 1:

This mostly urban district has been controlled by the Democrats since 1973, most recently by Congresswoman Diana Degette, a life long Colorado resident and attorney who by most standards leans towards the liberal side of the spectrum. She ran unopposed in the Democratic primary and faces George Lilly in the general – a less than formidable opponent endorsed by Ron Paul and political heavy weight Chuck Norris.

District 2:

This district encompasses Boulder, Grand, Summit and Clear Creek counties and has been represented by Mark Udall (now running for the senate) since 1999 and leans heavily Democratic with Boulder having the final say in District 2 politics. Not surprisingly, this race is considered a “safe” seat for the Dems as Jared Polis faces off against Scott Starin, a republican engineer with a focus on energy conservation technology who has managed to raise a paltry 15K for his war chest. Polis, an openly gay candidate, made millions with online businesses and according to opensecrets.org spent a small fortune (5 mil) in his primary race to defeat former president of the Senate Joan Fitz-Gerald and is about to reap the rewards on his investment.

District 3:

This district is topographically the largest within the state stretching from Pueblo to the Utah border. John, the younger of the Salazar brothers in the US congress, wrestled this district away from the grasp of republican control in the 2004 election who had clung to the seat since 1985 (well, sort of – Ben Nighthorse Capmbell was elected as a Dem and went all Benedict Arnold on us and changed allegiance to the GOP during his tenure in congress). This year he faces off against Wayne Wolf, a western slope rancher with limited political experience and typical “big government, don’t take my guns” rhetoric on his website. Not surprisingly, CQ politics predicts this as a safe seat for the Democrats.

District 4:

This race is the must watch show of the political season even for the casual observer of Colorado politics. In a district that has been represented by uberconservative Marilyn Musgrave since 2004, a democrat has not seen playing time since the 1970s. In fact, a few familiar republican faces – Wayne Allard and Bob Schaffer – have represented this tradition loving district in the past. However, her time in congress may be coming to a close as Rolling Stone recently pegged her as one of the “10 worst” members of congress and had this glowing report in a recent issue:

Musgrave has made regulating the bedroom behavior of her fellow Americans the focus of her entire career. An evangelical Christian who married her Bible-camp sweetheart, Musgrave does not believe in the separation of church and state. For her opposition to gay marriage — as well as her push to legalize concealed weapons — Musgrave received an endorsement from the KKK in May.

She won close elections in 2004 and in 2006 and faces a tough challenger in Betsy Markey who worked as Ken Salazar’s frontwoman during his successful senate race in 2004. While this race is officially “leaning republican” it looks like the Dems could pluck one out from under the GOP in November and give some much needed progressive elixir to the college educated types in Fort Collins.

District 5:

The 5th district encompasses Colorado Springs. The winner will be Doug Lamborn. He is a Republican. Let’s move on.

District 6:

This district is one of the wealthiest and whitest in the nation with a median household income at over to 70k and a dominant white population (87.9%) so it is no surprise that the GOP has controlled the reigns since the early 1980s. This district is home to John Elway, who was rumored to be considering either a run at the seat or possibly Allard’s senate seat. Most recently, self-appointed immigration czar Tom Tancredo has represented this district and hopes to hand it off to conservative Mike Coffman – the current Secretary of State. His website touts his military experience and labels him as a “proven conservative leader.” Hank Eng, his Democratic challenger does not seem to pose a significant threat but recent rumors of corruption have been swirling around the Coffman camp and may allow the Dems to pull off an upset in CD6 – but it seems like a long shot at best.

District 7:

Prior to 2000, this district did not exsist but due to recent population growth in Colorado, the map was redrawn to account for an additional congressional representative. This district was first represented by farmer turned politician Bob Beauprez who gave up the post in a failed gubeintorial race in 2006. Democrat Ed Perlmutter won the seat in 2006 and hopes to defend it from a challenge by John Lerew this election cycle. The Denver suburban district is bascially split in thirds between the Democrats, Republicans and Independents and Perlmutter has done just enough/not enough in his first term to earn another term in Washington and CQ politics.com agrees deeming this as a “safe Democratic” seat.

While these are only a small fraction of the seats up for grabs in the November, they are a good barometer for Colorado feelings on a whole. If the polling holds up it could mean a 7-2 democratic advantage in the next session of congress and if the moons align, that figure could be pushed to an 8-1 margin – both of which will have DNC chairman Howard Dean screaming for joy.

As Democratic strategist James Carville took the reigns of the Clinton campaign in 1992, he coaxed his team to stay on message with three themes he thought could beat George H.W. Bush – the economy, change and health care. The first theme became a rallying cry for the Democrats as they tried to take down a popular war time president and inadvertently gave rise to an American colloquialism. “Its the economy, stupid” seems as applicable today as ever with the news of two more mortgage giants folding and sending the market into the worst free fall since September 11, 2001 (see depressing chart here). Unemployment numbers are up, the strength of the dollar is down, and the American people seem to be on a hair trigger concerning the economy if the immediate response to John Mccain’s gaffe Monday about the “fundamentals” of the American economy is any indication. This response should not come as a huge surprise as currently, 56% of likely voters

Vote with your wallet

indicatate that the economy is the number one issue facing America – a huge shift from 23% one year ago. Furthermore, most political observers agree that when the economy is good the party in power tends to stay there and if not, the challenger typically wins (google: Herbert Hoover+1932+great depression+worst response ever). While the bad economic numbers seem to work in Obama’s favor, the other key economic component to winning in November is taxes, (google: read my lips+taxes+Bush+actually, I hope you can’t read my lips, because I am going to raises taxes+1992 election) something the Democrats have not been able to overcome during the last two presidential elections. A quick study of the tax plans put forth by the Obama and McCain camps reveals a fairly typical liberal (demand side) and conservative (supply side) approach to economic policy, but a closer look is necessary as both Mccain and Obama have inched towards the center when you compare their plans to their respective historical counterparts – Reagan and Franklin D. Roosevelt. First, it is helpful to cut through some of the political and media spin which this article does quite nicely. The McCain folks would have you believe that Obama is scheming to tax anything that moves (or doesn’t in the case of your dead uncle Jerry who just left you his 3 million dollar estate) and claim that the Democrats would implement the largest tax increase since WWII. This simply is not true, nor is the false Republican claim that Obama will raise taxes on the middle class – something that Fox News (believe it or not) was sure to point out yesterday. A further analysis of the the plans reveals that in fact, Obama’s plan would tax individuals making over $250K/year with the highest tax burden shouldered by Bill Gates (not him personally, but his type). While Obama would extend Bush’s tax cuts for the middle class, he would expand the tax cuts for the lowest income earners. Predictably, McCain wants to extend Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and reduce the capital gains tax. If you don’t know what capital gains are, it probably means this won’t affect you since normally this only hits the investments of wealthy Americans (probably not most students at The University of Colorado At Denver). Moreover, Corporations will see a reduction in taxation under the McCain plan which according to classic conservative fiscal thinking will increase competition within the free market, allow access to more capital to create jobs and eventually everyone benefits. Regardless of the plan you prefer, you will most likely see a reduction in your overall tax bill which come April 15, might leave a few extra dollars in your pocket for malted hops and barley. While this will be great for a one time celebration of your good fortune, what the American voter needs to consider is some of the hidden costs of living in a faltering economy and the plain humanity of our society. As gas prices continue to soar, the costs of health care increase and tax payer money continues to bail out wall street mistakes, a supply side philosophy seems woefully out of touch with the majority of Americans. If you think that government can be a force for good and help those that might need an extra boost into the next income bracket (as economist Paul Krugman does) then it might be time to consider a change in our economic plan. If, on the other hand, you view those people who struggle to make ends meet as “whiners” (as McCain economic adviser Phil Gramm does) more of the same might be your style. Moving forward, as wall street tries to deal with the implications of the most recent collapse, look for the economy to take center stage and the talk of lipstick and sex for kindergarteners to fade away. This rough and tumble game of politics has real world economic consequences – it is just unfortunate that it takes an economic collapse on wall street and a hit in our wallets to remind us of that.

Constitutionally speaking, the Vice President does not wield significant power within the executive branch.Relegated to the “1st loser” spot by the authors of the constitution the only “real” duty of the Vice President lies within the legislative branch as the presiding officer over the senate under which he has actual voting power in case of a tie. While the first VP, John Adams lamented about the insignificance of his office, the role of the VP has evolved over time. In fact, it was not until the Carter administration that the #2 had an office spot in the west wing. Many politicos however, point to Dick Cheney as the most powerful VP to date. With the help of John Woo and others within the office, Cheney has pursued an aggressive expansion of executive power that for better or worse (I believe the latter) will be around for the next Vice President as he or she moves into the west wing in January. What does this all mean?It means that the 2008 election is the first since this aggressive expansion of vice presidential power, thus making the selection of the VP a high stakes game of electoral roulette both for the Mccain and Obama campaigns.The media circus, fueled by rumors and rampant speculation from the talking heads, reached a fever pitch in the last week as we creep towards the nominating conventions. A careful analysis of the race reveals a few key questions that need to be addressed. Who should the candidates consider and who should they keep off the ballot at all costs in November?What criteria will the candidates use to carefully pick their mate and finally who is ultimately going to get the nod?

Let us first take a close look at the old “maverick” John Mccain who has faced some difficulty from the start due to his anti-GOP establishment stances on immigration reform environmental regulation and lets face it, does not have the best “family values” trackrecord to appease the evanlegicals.He lingers in the shadow of an unpopular president and his war, yet he still maintains somewhat of a moral authority on war time issues due to his widely discussed service in Vietnam and his support for the surge.Throughout his years in Washington (and there have been numerous), Mccain has been able to earn the “maverick” label that will most likely allow him to pick up some of the moderates that would have otherwise turned in a different direction.What he lacks is a solid base turn out that Rove and Bush so carefully cultivated in the last two general elections, which leads us to the choices. The media has speculated on everyone from Jeb Bush (a guaranteed loser) to Sarah Palin, a relatively unknown Governor from Alaska. Some others include Bobby Jindal, Tom Ridge and even blue-dog Democrat Joe Lieberman. None of these candidates will ultimately be “the one.” The McCain campaign will settle on Mitt Romney for a few reasons. First, he will pull in the core GOP voters that are suspicious of Mccain and seem to love the idea of a continuation of the “war on terror” and tough treatment (ie. torture) of Gitmo detainees. He is a fiscal conservative with bona fide executive credentials that will compliment the holes in the Mccain campaign.

On the other side of the aisle Obama needs to be very careful with their selection as well. A misstep at this stage could spell disaster for the historical candidate. While Obama seems to be a uniter with a Teflon coat, he has been dogged by doubts on his foreign policy knowledge and his overall experience. According to pollingreport.com a full 23% of the electorate is “not at all confident” he will make good foreign policy decisions. This needs to be one of the highest priorities for the Obama camp as they make their decision. The other major hurdle he will need to overcome is the Hillary factor. According to the maps, he had a difficult time picking up white rural voters in the primary – something that Clinton was able to quite easily with the help of her buddy Jack Daniels (see video). With these major problems in mind, we turn to the list which includes everyone from a former fidelity challenged Vice Presidential candidate (John Edwards) to Hillary Clinton herself. Others include Evan Bayh, Sam Nunn, Joe Biden, Jim Webb and Gov. Kaine from Virgina. While Jim Webb has a wealth of foreign policy and military experience he lacks the necessary executive experience to counteract the experience argument against Obama. An Obama/Clinton ticket will be a disaster as it is antithetical to the “change” Obama has discussed. The ultimate choice lies in Evan Bayh, a moderate white guy (that’s important) from middle America in a largely Republican state. He has campaigned for Obama see video and has statewide appeal that will be able to swing those crucial electoral votes for Barack in November. He also happens to sit on the Senate intelligence committee (which to some may seem like an oxymoron) and armed services committee – which will serve to bolster Obama’s lack of military experience. So there you have it – Mccain/Romney and Obama/Bayh – look for it on a bumper sticker coming soon!